I recently saw an episode of House of Cards where Francis Underwood, the lead character played by Kevin Spacey, mentions that “a great man once said: everything is about sex, except sex; sex is about power.” I thought that was an interesting quote and wondered who that great man was. After some investigation (I Googled), I found out that it’s a quote by Oscar Wilde:
“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.” — Oscar Wilde
After everything that I’ve blogged about love and sex in the recent past, there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that everything in the world really is about sex. All life revolves around sex. Dr. Sigmund Freud established the sexual desires as the primary motivational forces of human life. And his best and most famous pupil, Dr. Wilhelm Reich, took that even further in his own research, and argued that sexual energy — or orgone energy as he referred to it — is the underlying and primary energy responsible for all life in the universe.
In my post about our basic needs as human beings, I’ve also argued that sexual satisfaction is one of our basic natural needs as human beings. In fact, sexual satisfaction or procreation is one of the primary objectives of every living organism in the universe, down to even the smallest cell.
However, I don’t agree with the second part of Oscar Wilde’s quote, namely that “sex is about power.” Sex in and of itself is not about power. The abuse of our sexuality on the other hand, through sexual suppression and even repression, is very much about power. Perhaps that’s what Wilde meant when he said that “sex is about power” but I can’t be sure.
In my Understanding Women article series, I’ve discussed in details how our sexuality is used against us in order to manipulate, frustrate and control the entire human species and turn us all into slaves. When you read this for the first time, it might sound crazy and very far-out, but read my article series and check my references, and you’ll quickly understand how genius our manipulators were. Genius, but also very cruel.
That the primary purpose of manipulating our sexuality is to divide and conquer the human race, is a conclusion I eventually came to all by myself. However, I recently discovered that many years ago Dr. Wilhelm Reich had already drawn the same and obvious conclusions. And this becomes evident in his following quote:
“Sexual suppression supports the power of the Church, which has sunk very deep roots into the exploited masses by means of sexual anxiety and guilt. It engenders timidity towards authority and binds children to their parents. This results in adult subservience to state authority and to capitalistic exploitation. It paralyzes the intellectual critical powers of the oppressed masses because it consumes the greater part of biological energy. Finally, it paralyzes the resolute development of creative forces and renders impossible the achievement of all aspirations for human freedom. In this way the prevailing economic system (in which single individuals can easily rule entire masses) becomes rooted in the psychic structures of the oppressed themselves.” — Wilhelm Reich
That’s a brilliant quote by Reich, and it shows how Reich was able to trace the manipulation of human sexuality to its core purpose — power and control over the human species. Knowing this, it becomes easy to understand why our sexuality is being suppressed starting from a very early age when children haven’t even gotten a chance to build any defenses against it. Children are brainwashed into suppressing and repressing their natural sexual desires, and to blindly accept all kinds of theories about love, sexuality and relationships, that eventually work against them when they become adults, making it difficult for everyone to satisfy their sexual desires. This in turn frustrates and weakens every individual and makes them easy to control and exploit, as Reich mentioned (you’ll see plenty of disgusting examples of this if you watch the House of Cards series mentioned at the beginning of this post). And as I’ve shown in my Understanding Women article series, women are the primary victims of all the sexual manipulation in societies around the world, in order to turn men into slaves.
So in closing I have to stress again that sex, in and of itself, is not about power. It’s the manipulation of our sexuality, through sexual suppression and repression, that is about power. It’s very important to understand this, because once most of the human race truly understands this and starts living accordingly, it will set us all free and usher in the Golden Age we’ve all been waiting for. Liberating our sexuality is going to be the final frontier in our quest towards absolute freedom. And we’re already well on our way.
Watching the recent events unfold in Venezuela I was surprised to see that after all this time a lot of people still don’t realize and still aren’t able to see the hidden forces that are involved and are orchestrating all of the chaos in the country. You would think that after the CIA-backed coup d’état attempt against Chávez in 2002 – where there can be no doubt about USA and CIA involvement  — most people would have become a lot wiser and would be able to notice all the manipulation and deception going on. But it seems that the West is still able to deceive a good amount of the global population with the same imperialist tactics they’ve been using now for almost a century in many different countries around the world.
When you study the events in Venezuela, eventually you’ll be able to recognize the blueprint of the standard CIA operating procedure of first destabilizing and then taking over a country and installing a puppet government that looks after the interests of the neo-colonialists. They’ve been using the same blueprint for decades now in many countries around the world, including Suriname where I live. One of the reasons why I could easily recognize the blueprint they use is because I spent a lot of time researching the CIA’s involvement in Suriname in the early 1980s. From there I eventually saw that they used the same tactics in many countries in the region and around the world.
Dear Dr. Reich,
I found out about you and your work recently in December 2013 and have been absolutely fascinated by the research you’ve done on the subject of human sexuality. It quickly became clear to me why you were regarded as one of Dr. Freud’s most promising students. I’m truly disappointed by the fact that I didn’t come across your work much earlier, because it would have saved me a lot of time doing my own personal research in the same and related areas.
Ever since my early childhood, I’ve always had a lot of questions regarding human sexuality. I couldn’t understand the often conflicting ways in which society treated the subject. Even at such a young age it was quite obvious to me that something was terribly wrong. At the same time, I was also fascinated with women, in the same way that any healthy young boy usually is, but even more so because I could detect problems and inconsistencies in their thoughts and behavior. Back then, and still right now, there was this notion in society that women, by nature, were very difficult to understand, and that we’d never be able to figure them out. We just had to accept it and try to live with their irrationality. Even Dr. Freud was puzzled with their behavior for as long as he lived.
But it was clear to me from the very beginning that women were suffering from a mental problem; I just had no idea back then how to explain it. And being the type who wants to understand everything around me, this was just unacceptable. I promised myself to solve this puzzle in my lifetime, and I would often mention to friends and other people that I spoke to, that a time would come when I would have an answer for this mystery.
I saw over on Business Insider that Bill Gates blogged about things that he thinks made the world better in 2013. I wanted to comment on his blog post and point out what I think many may not realize. Gates pretends to be doing good around the world, and perhaps some of what he’s doing may be beneficial to some people, but overall he’s a big hypocrite. Philanthropy is all about business to Gates and those who support him.
For example, Gates blogs:
We got smarter and faster at fighting polio. You may have heard about recent polio outbreaks in Syria, Kenya, and Somalia. What you may not know is just how rapid and effective the response has been. It looks like the outbreak in the Horn of Africa was controlled in 4 months, less than half the time it took to control an outbreak there in 2005. [...] Despite the ongoing violence there and in Afghanistan—including horrifying reprisals against vaccine workers—the next couple of years are a good opportunity for us to make progress on this goal.
The polio vaccine was given to humanity for free by its inventor Jonas Salk. When asked why he didn’t patent his invention, Salk replied “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” Today Gates and his band of thieves are raking in billions of dollars based on a vaccine that was given to humanity for free by its inventor. The next time you meet Gates, ask him why he and the corporations he has a stake in, insist on patenting their technology and medical inventions. Why do they insist on patenting their drugs? If Gates and his supporters are such good people, then why can’t they come even close to Salk, and release their inventions for free so all of humanity can benefit from them? Gates may be fooling a lot of people worldwide, but he’s not fooling me.
Have you ever wondered how a human being develops itself out of the initial cell in the womb of the mother? More specifically, if you look at the proportions between the various organs and body parts during the growth of the embryo, you can see that every one of them grows at a different rate. In the beginning all of them are roughly the same size, but as the embryo grows, certain parts of the body get bigger compared to the rest. Even after a baby is born, the proportions between various body parts continue to change as it grows up to the point where it becomes a fully grown adult.
How does an organism “know” what the final proportions should be? How does it “know” which parts of the body should grow bigger or faster than others? According to modern science this information is probably stored in our DNA, but we’ve not yet been able to figure out exactly how it’s stored. But I think that I found an important clue related to how this information might be encoded if it’s really stored in our DNA.
I saw a story today on Business Insider claiming that Mark Zuckerberg gave away $990 million to charity. Here’s a quote:
This morning, Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to give 18 million Facebook shares to charity by the end of the month. Facebook is currently trading at $55 per share, so Zuckerberg’s gift is worth just under $1 billion.
Every time I see such a story I wonder if these people really think everyone is so stupid not to see what’s really going on here. Do you really think Zuckerberg gave away $990 million? Ask yourself, did he really give away that money to charity, when much of the money goes to his own foundations? Both the Zuckerberg foundation and the Breakthrough Prize in Life Science foundations are his.
It seems to me that this is just a way for Zuckerberg to avoid paying taxes on the part of the money he supposedly “donates” away. Just like his company Facebook finds all kinds of ways to avoid paying taxes.
What Zuckerberg is doing here isn’t unique to him; all the people in his class use the same or similar tactics to avoid taxes, including people like Bill Gates, who also has his own Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. On top of that, this is often also used as a major publicity stunt to show the world how good they supposedly are. In reality the money doesn’t go to poor people, like you would think, but is instead invested in their own companies that rake in millions of dollars in profits on the backs of the poor. It’s like I wrote in a recent post about Bill Gates:
It seems to me that Gates and other philanthropists and so called humanitarian organizations are still in this very much for the profit. This would explain why Gates doesn’t say anything about the crimes that are being committed against the people in African countries, where their resources are essentially stolen from them by big corporations that make insane amounts of profits — corporations that people like Gates have financial stakes in (watch a documentary titled “Blood Coltan” for an example). It would also explain why Gates is fighting HIV in African countries when in fact it’s known among top scientists that the whole HIV/AIDS business is a huge money making scam that’s needlessly killing thousands of people around the world.
If Gates was really concerned about these people, then instead of playing mister philanthropic nice guy and pretending to the world how good he is by seemingly “giving away” money to help them, he would start publicly telling the governments and corporations to stop exploiting the African people, and to start paying them the money they deserve — the true value of their labor and resources. Give them their fair share of all the billions of dollars corporations make from their resources. That will allow them to start getting out of poverty, to take care of themselves and as a result they won’t have to rely on handouts from people like Gates anymore who eventually get back much more money from the enslavement of these people than they “give” to them. The evidence is out there.
The same things I wrote above about Gates also apply here to Zuckerberg. If you were still in doubt about the true motives, then let Gates himself remove all doubt for you:
By the late 1990s, I had dropped the idea of starting an institute for basic research. Instead I began seeking out other areas where business and government underinvest. Together Melinda and I found a few areas that cried out for philanthropy—in particular for what I have called catalytic philanthropy.
I have been sharing my idea of catalytic philanthropy for a while now. It works a lot like the private markets: You invest for big returns. But there’s a big difference. In philanthropy, the investor doesn’t need to get any of the benefit. We take a double-pronged approach: (1) Narrow the gap so that advances for the rich world reach the poor world faster, and (2) turn more of the world’s IQ toward devising solutions to problems that only people in the poor world face. Of course, this comes with its own challenges. You’re working in a global economy worth tens of trillions of dollars, so any philanthropic effort is relatively small. If you want to have a big impact, you need a leverage point—a way to put in a dollar of funding or an hour of effort and benefit society by a hundred or a thousand times as much.
We work to draw in not just governments but also businesses, because that’s where most innovation comes from. I’ve heard some people describe the economy of the future as “post-corporatist and post-capitalist”—one in which large corporations crumble and all innovation happens from the bottom up. What nonsense. People who say things like that never have a convincing explanation for who will make drugs or low-cost carbon-free energy. Catalytic philanthropy doesn’t replace businesses. It helps more of their innovations benefit the poor.
I like how Gates says that “people who say things like that never have a convincing explanation for who will make drugs or low-cost carbon-free energy.” Obviously Gates has never heard about the story of Nikola Tesla and J. P. Morgan. If it wasn’t for money blinded corporatists like Morgan, today Tesla would have provided the whole world with not only carbon-free energy, but completely free energy that wouldn’t cost you anything.
As you can see, “catalytic philanthropy” is really just big business for these people. It’s not really about helping people out; helping people is just a byproduct of their quest to “invest for big returns.” It’s not help; it’s an investment. You have to realize and understand the difference here. And any help that does end up going to the poor is but a drop of water on the hot plate that is the systematic exploitation and enslavement of these people. It really means nothing significant for them.
People like Gates and Zuckerberg don’t fool me, and neither should they be able to fool you. Giving is really just for their own benefit, while they continue to exploit and enslave the poor everywhere around the world, either directly but more often indirectly through their governments and corporations. I look forward to the day when they will really start to do something significant for humankind by being politically incorrect and publicly questioning and trying to put an end to all the atrocities that are committed by governments and corporations against humanity everywhere around the world, without any fear of the business and personal impact it will have on them.
I saw an article today on Business Insider about billionaire Marc Benioff not being impressed by Zuckerberg’s donation, saying that it’s basically a tax-writeoff, just like I mentioned in my post above:
Benioff implied in an interview with San Francisco Magazine’s Jon Steinberg that the donation was basically a tax write-off:
Marc Benioff: Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a bunch of DAFs: donor-advised funds. You give your money to SVCF and you get your tax write-off for the year, but [the foundation] has no obligation to administer that money.
Jon Steinberg: So you see Zuckerberg’s gift as more of a write-off than a donation?
Marc Benioff: Where’s it gone? What good is it doing now? I’m sure his intentions are positive, but we need to see that money get distributed. What are his targets? What are his philanthropic interests? We know that he has a political interest with his 501(c)(4) [Fwd.us, a lobbying group pushing for tech-friendly federal policies], but what are his philanthropic interests?
Although it’s fairly unusual for a billionaire philanthropist to criticize how another billionaire donates money, Benioff isn’t shy about speaking his mind, even on this subject.
He often speaks out against what he calls the “pay at the end” model advocated by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and their Giving Pledge. Instead of becoming rich and then giving it all away right before you die, Benioff wants the rich to give their money away as they earn it. It’s the “pay as you go” model, he calls it.
Of course Benioff completely misses the point himself. I have a much better idea for all of these rich people: Instead of getting rich and hoarding resources, how about NOT fucking taking more than you need to make a decent living in the first place? Don’t take more than you need; leave what you don’t need for others, instead of taking it and giving it away later only to give others the false impression of you being a good and generous person, when in fact you’re hoarding a great deal of available resources and are the cause of lots of poor people who are struggling to stay alive. Someone who truly cared would never allow himself to become as rich as these fuckwads, because he would understand that taking that much of the resources for himself can only happen at the expense of other people around the world. Yes, becoming rich can only happen at the expense of others. It doesn’t matter if you give most of your wealth away when you die, or as you earn it, because the damage has already been done in that case; it’s better not to take or accept more than you need in the first place! This is why I never want to become rich, and will simply start refusing income when I already have enough to survive.
Ever since Nelson Mandela died yesterday, everyone is quick to pay lip service to him on the Internet, especially on social media websites, mentioning how much of a great man he was and how much they admire what he did for humankind. It makes me sick to witness such hypocritical behavior every time. If you really think Mandela was such a great man, and if you value what he did for humankind, the best way to pay a tribute to him is to at least try and walk in his footsteps. I know that won’t be easy, but if all of you hypocrites could at least manage to have even 10% of his courage, we’d be well on our way to seriously improving the world we live in.
There are so many atrocities being committed against humanity all around us, why do you continue to look away and pretend as if you see nothing? Why not speak up about it? Speaking up and sharing the information about the crimes that are being committed against humanity really is the least you could do. People don’t even have the courage to do that, afraid of being politically incorrect and afraid of what they have to lose.
Here’s another clear example of female sexual suppression in society: A sex scene featuring actress Evan Rachel Wood was cut out of the movie “Charlie Countryman” by the MPAA because apparently it showed oral sex being performed on Wood’s character while she was enjoying herself. Here’s what Wood had to say about this in a series of posts on Twitter:
After seeing the new cut of #CharlieCountryman I would like 2 share my disappointment with the MPAA, who thought it was necessary to censor a woman’s sexuality once again. The scene where the two main characters make ‘love’ was altered because someone felt that seeing a man give a woman oral sex made people ‘uncomfortable’ but the scenes in which people are murdered by having their heads blown off remained intact and unaltered.
This is a symptom of a society that wants to shame women and put them down for enjoying sex, especially when (gasp) the man isn’t getting off as well! It’s hard for me to believe that had the roles been reversed it still would have been cut. OR had the female character been raped it would have been cut. It’s time for people to GROW UP.
Accept that woman are sexual beings … Accept that some men like pleasuring women. Accept that women don’t have to just be fucked and say thank you. We are allowed and entitled to enjoy ourselves. It’s time we put our foot down …
Wood is correct in stating that this is “a symptom of a society that wants to shame women and put them down for enjoying sex.” In fact, more accurately, it’s a symptom of a society that wants to enforce (female) sexual suppression and repression on everyone.
Today everyone living in the modern world is familiar with the Apple logo. It’s one of the most popular and recognizable brands, not to mention the world’s most valued brand since 2013, having overtaken Coca-Cola and even Google who are now in the third and second place respectively, according to a study of the Top 100 brands by Interbrand:
“Every so often, a company changes our lives — not just with its products, but with its ethos,” Jez Frampton, chief executive officer at New York-based brand consultancy Interbrand, said in a statement. Current Apple CEO “Tim Cook has assembled a solid leadership team and has kept Steve Jobs’ vision intact — a vision that has allowed Apple to deliver on its promise of innovation time and time again.”
The fact that Apple has changed our lives is not an overstatement. Apple was one of the key players in the beginning when the personal computing revolution took off, bringing the power of the computer to the masses, and has been and has remained a leader when it comes to innovations in this area. This much is very obvious to almost everybody.
However, not a lot of people realize today that there’s a lot more going on in the background than is immediately obvious on the surface. It appears that Apple is just another milestone in a grander plan spanning thousands of years designed to help humankind to reach a new era of enlightenment. Depending on your level of awareness, this may sound crazy at first, but bear with me for the remainder of this article and you might be surprised. We’ve been given a rare opportunity to take a glimpse behind the scenes as the grand plan unfolds.
New York based photographer Wyatt Gallery visited Suriname for a few days to photograph some historic sites for his project “Jewish Treasures of the Caribbean.” Wyatt has done work for the New York Times in the past and his work has been published in numerous books and magazines such as Esquire and the New York Times, in addition to receiving numerous awards. This was Wyatt’s second visit to Suriname; he had been in Suriname before for the New York Times.
I attended a presentation he did for a group of local photographers yesterday, and was amazed by the work he’s doing. And it’s not just the great photography, but also the way in which he has been able to combine his photography with helping people out in various countries and raising money and awareness for good causes.